A framework of scalable QoE modeling for application explosion in the Internet of Things
Abstract
The Internet of Things (IoT) opens a new horizon for network applications by virtue of wireless sensor network technologies and advancement of data analytics. Since various applications are possible in the IoT compared to conventional multimedia applications, quality of experience (QoE), which is a user's subjective satisfaction with the application, becomes more complicated for network operators to perceive. In this paper, we propose a framework of scalable QoE modeling for explosively increasing applications. In the framework, the massive amount of quality metrics in the IoT architecture are defined as physical metrics and organized into four layers; device, network, computing, and user interface. We also introduce metaphysical metrics, which are the summarized quality metrics that users of IoT applications demand. By aggregating the massive amount of physical metrics into certain metaphysical metrics and qualitatively modeling the QoE by the metaphysical metrics according to the characteristics of the applications, scalable modeling of the QoE for continuously emerging applications in the IoT becomes possible.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Some other existing literature [30,37,38] do not assess how the application QoE relates to the individual components of IoT applications.
“The same is true with some of the other existing literature [30,37,38], as they do not assess how the application QoE relates to the individual components of IoT applications.”
From QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions (2021) · cites this paper as [37]
They model the application QoE and measure the users experience through subjective evaluations.
“They model the application QoE and measure the users experience through subjective evaluations.”
From QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions (2021) · cites this paper as [37]
Cites
The Internet of Things: A survey
Atzori, L., Iera, A., & Morabito, G. (2010) · Computer Networks · doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2010.05.010 · Cited by 15,613 · see citing works
Internet of Things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions
Gubbi, J., Buyya, R., Marusic, S., & Palaniswami, M. (2013) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2013.01.010 · Cited by 12,293 · see citing works
Context Aware Computing for The Internet of Things: A Survey
Perera, C., Zaslavsky, A., Christen, P., & Georgakopoulos, D. (2014) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/surv.2013.042313.00197 · Cited by 2,861 · cited 4× · see citing works
“Watson and Sasse [8] presented the importance of context-awareness in the IoT and introduced QoC as a quality metric.”
BackgroundInfluentialCognitive internet of things: A new paradigm beyond connection
Wu, Q., Ding, G., Xu, Y., Feng, S., Du, Z., Wang, J., & Long, K. (2014) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2014.2311513 · Cited by 550 · see citing works
Quality of Context: What it is and why we need it
Buchholz, T. A., Küpper, A., & Schiffers, M. (2016) · doi:10.13140/rg.2.1.3795.9284 · Cited by 286 · see citing works
Measuring perceived quality of speech and video in multimedia conferencing applications
Watson, A., & Sasse, M. A. (1998) · ACM International Conference on Multimedia (ACM MM) · doi:10.1145/290747.290755 · Cited by 184 · see citing works
Agboma, F., & Liotta, A. (2008) · International Conference on Advances in Mobile Computing and Multimedia (MoMM) · doi:10.1145/1497185.1497210 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Empirical study based on machine learning approach to assess the QoS/QoE correlation
Mushtaq, M. S., Augustin, B., & Mellouk, A. (2012) · 2012 17th European Conference on Networks and Optical Communications · doi:10.1109/noc.2012.6249939 · Cited by 100 · see citing works
Building principles for a quality of information specification for sensor information
Bisdikian, Kaplan, Srivastava, Thornley, Verma, & Young (2009) · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Quality of Experience in the Multimedia Internet of Things: Definition and practical use-cases
Floris, A., & Atzori, L. (2015) · 2015 IEEE International Conference on Communication Workshop (ICCW) · doi:10.1109/iccw.2015.7247433 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
QoI-aware energy management in Internet-of-Things sensory environments
Sun, Z., Liu, C. H., Bisdikian, C. C., Branch, J. W., & Yang, B. (2012) · IEEE International Conference on Sensing, Communication, and Networking (SECON) · doi:10.1109/secon.2012.6275777 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
What Is the Internet of Things?
Bell, C. (2016) · Apress eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-2108-2_1 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Actuator quality in the Internet of Things
Aráuz, J., & Fynn-Cudjoe, T. (2013) · doi:10.1109/sahcn.2013.6644957 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Actuator quality in the Internet of Things
Aráuz, J., & Fynn-Cudjoe, T. (2013) · doi:10.1109/iot-nc.2013.6694051 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
5 of the 19 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Multimedia Internet of Things: A Comprehensive Survey
Nauman, A., Qadri, Y. A., Amjad, M. F., Zikria, Y. B., Afzal, M. K., & Kim, S. W. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2964280 · Cited by 333 · see citing works
QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions
Fizza, K., Banerjee, A., Mitra, K., Jayaraman, P. P., Ranjan, R., Patel, P., & Georgakopoulos, D. (2021) · Discover Internet of Things · doi:10.1007/s43926-021-00006-7 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
“The authors in [37] identified the role of data on application quality at various stages from data collection, data transfer, data analysis to user interface.”
BackgroundA review on quality of experience (QoE) in cloud computing
Laghari, A. A., Zhang, X., Shaikh, Z. A., Khan, A., Estrela, V. V., & Izadi, S. (2023) · Journal of Reliable Intelligent Environments · doi:10.1007/s40860-023-00210-y · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Nashaat, H., Ahmed, E., & Rizk, R. Y. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.3003249 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Survey on QoE Assessment Approach for Network Service
Yang, M., Wang, S., Calheiros, R. N., & Yang, F. (2018) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2018.2867253 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Data-Driven QoS and QoE Management in Smart Cities: A Tutorial Study
Tu, W. (2018) · IEEE Communications Magazine · doi:10.1109/mcom.2018.1700870 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
A Survey on Evaluating the Quality of Autonomic Internet of Things Applications
Fizza, K., Banerjee, A., Jayaraman, P. P., Auluck, N., Ranjan, R. K., Mitra, K., & Georgakopoulos, D. (2022) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2022.3205377 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Pal, D., Vanijja, V., Arpnikanondt, C., Zhang, X., & Papasratorn, B. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2917061 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Suryanegara, M., Prasetyo, D. A., Andriyanto, F., & Hayati, N. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2957341 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Huang, X., Xie, K., Leng, S., Yuan, T., & Ma, M. (2018) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2018.02.046 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
ODTE: A Metric for Digital Twin Entanglement
Bellavista, P., Bicocchi, N., Fogli, M., Giannelli, C., Mamei, M., & Picone, M. (2024) · IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society · doi:10.1109/ojcoms.2024.3385659 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Internet of multimedia things (IoMT): A review
Laghari, A. A., Li, H., Karim, S., Hyder, W., Yin, S., Khan, A. A., & Laghari, R. A. (2024) · The Review of Socionetwork Strategies · doi:10.1007/s12626-024-00175-1 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
A Comprehensive View on Quality Characteristics of the IoT Solutions
Bureš, M., Bellekens, X., Frajták, K., & Ahmed, B. S. (2019) · EAI/Springer Innovations in Communication and Computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-28925-6_6 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
A novel holistic approach for performance evaluation in Internet of Things
Martinez‐Caro, J., & Cano, M. (2020) · International Journal of Communication Systems · doi:10.1002/dac.4454 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Quality Provisioning in the Internet of Things Era
Pal, D., Vanijja, V., & Vijayakumar, V. (2018) · doi:10.1145/3291280.3291790 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Quality of Experience Evaluation of Smart-Wearables: A Mathematical Modelling Approach
Pal, D., Triyason, T., Varadarajan, V., & Zhang, X. (2019) · 2019 IEEE 35th International Conference on Data Engineering Workshops (ICDEW) · doi:10.1109/icdew.2019.00-32 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Measuring QoE of a Teleconsultation App in Mental Health Using a Pentagram Model
de la Torre Díez, I., Alonso, S. G., Cruz, E. M., & Franco, M. A. (2019) · Journal of Medical Systems · doi:10.1007/s10916-019-1342-1 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
A Dynamic Estimation of Service Level Based on Fuzzy Logic for Robustness in the Internet of Things
Jia, B., Hao, L., Zhang, C., & Chen, D. (2018) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s18072190 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Measuring Digital Twin Entanglement in Industrial Internet of Things
Bellavista, P., Bicocchi, N., Fogli, M., Giannelli, C., Mamei, M., & Picone, M. (2023) · International Conference on Communications · doi:10.1109/icc45041.2023.10278787 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Multimedia Upstreaming Cournot Game in Non-Orthogonal Multiple Access Internet of Things
He, S., & Wang, W. (2019) · IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering · doi:10.1109/tnse.2019.2897483 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Defining and Assessing Quality in IoT Environments: A Survey
Sgora, A., & Chatzimisios, P. (2022) · IoT · doi:10.3390/iot3040026 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Quality of Experience in Internet of Things: A Systematic Literature Review
Sanyour, R., Abdullah, M., & Abdullah, S. (2022) · Journal on internet of things · doi:10.32604/jiot.2022.040966 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Kumhar, M., Raval, G., & Parikh, V. (2020) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-39875-0_35 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
QoE en el contexto de Internet of Everything
Cano, M. (2017) · Jornadas de Ingeniería Telemática (JITEL) · doi:10.4995/jitel2017.2017.6573 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ikeda, Y., Kouno, S., Shiozu, A., & Noritake, K.
- Affiliations
- NTT (Japan) (JP)
- ORCID
- Shiozu, Akihiro
- Venue
- 2016 IEEE 3rd World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2016-12
- Volume
- 2016
- Pages
- 425-429
- OpenAlex
- W2586660623
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 1.39
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT) (publishedVersion)
- IEEE Conference Proceedings
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image and Video Quality Assessment
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Traffic and Congestion Control
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › IoT and Edge/Fog Computing
- Keywords
- Internet of Things, quality of experience, QoE modeling, scalable modeling, IoT applications, quality metrics, multi-layer architecture, user satisfaction, emerging applications
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
